Who to vote for..

Well, tomorrow is election day, and I still don’t know who I’m supporting in the Democratic primary.

Kucinich is the closest to my ideals, but he’ll never win. (Face it, Sheer is not in the majority)

Clinton is a end to the stupid-rich-white-male-with-misplaced-priorities game, and also is very interested in improving our health care situation, which I’m also very interested in.  So she’s tempting.

Obama appears to be a honest politician, which might make for a refreshing change, but is a little too religious for my tastes.

I think the winner will be Clinton – but I may not know myself until I push the button.

8 Responses to “Who to vote for..”

  1. ClintJCL Says:

    Clinton will kow-tow to big business… don’t believe her lip-service.. She’s been in scandals too, but people forget rather quickly. She is probably way more corrupt than her husband.

    How long have the democrats been promising health care? Probably since way before Bill Clinton. Yet it’s never going to happen, because the two primary parties are not at all interested in rocking the boat…

  2. sheer_panic Says:

    Have I ever mentioned how much I loathe the idea of a representative government using a two-party system?

  3. howard Says:

    I agree with you ut I’m leaning towards Obama. I think Clinton will be business as usual,,, she has been trained that way and I don’t think she’ll be able to put a collar on the expresident or keep him out of the oval office, as the Highlander would say ” THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE”. You gotta expect that Bill will be hanging around the white house giving advice, especially when she cries…
    A crying president, I don’t think so……..


  4. ClintJCL Says:

    Me too. But it’s only 2 party de facto. Other parties have won.. in the last century even.

  5. Cygnostik Says:

    Vote for mEEEEEEEEEEEEEEz!

  6. curious Says:

    Actually, when it comes to religion, Obama bothers me the least of all the candidates running. If you find time, check out his “Call to Renewal Keynote”

    Transcript: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
    Videos: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/194/story_19473_1.html

    “…we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won’t have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.” -Obama

  7. drachen Says:

    The two party system is the logical consequence of a winner take all system. There have been other parties, but it’s very rare to have any more than two viable parties at any given time (i.e. the libertarians could theoretically supplant the republicans, but we won’t have three viable parties at once) and it’s not a stable situation. It will “decay” to two parties fairly quicly. Having to choose one and only one candidate (rather than several that are representative of the population) creates polarization.

  8. Kayti Says:


    What, in your opinion, would be the most likely way to get a system that could stably support more than two parties? Also, what’s your favorite way? I love reading your takes on politics, since they’re usually so well thought-out.

Leave a Reply